Biden proposes sweeping changes to the Supreme Court

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-one-above-law-biden-093107488.html

President Biden has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to bring sweeping changes to the Supreme Court

1. Term limits of 18 years on Supreme Court Justices. This would have a President nominate new Justices every two years.
2. Enforceable Code of Ethics on the Supreme Court
3. Removing Presidential Immunity by mandating that, "constitution does not confer immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as president."

These are common sense changes. For example the current system has a President nominate someone when there is an opening, and yet because of this system Trump was able to nominate 3 justices while Biden only nominated 1. (and, in fact, Trump got three because of underhanded tactics by Mitch McConnell). Trump, just because by random chance (and the aforementioned underhanded tactics) got to set the future of the Supreme Court for GENERATIONS while Biden only got to nominate 1 justice despite both having served a single four year term.

I would love to hear what the arguments against such changes could be, because I can't think of any.

 

I absolutely agree with an enforceable code of ethics, they have shown they have no desire to monitor themselves.

Disagree with a limit on how long they can serve. If they are 40 when they are elected they would still likely have many years ahead of them at 58. And age cap would be more appropriate or enforcement could simply fall under the code of ethics.

No person should be immune from the law. Not the president and not police officers which trump is now pushing.

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/bi...pZxoPwpDo+rYct39WBfp0zlezSbPY6/S0xFG6QaRqAJs+

The doofus Biden doesn't seem to realize that his first two law changes also require an amendment to the Constitution.

 

When has the constitution ever stopped Brandon from doing anything? All this is essentially campaign rhetoric seeking any desperate measure to get folks to pay attention to him and Brenda.... Brandon and Brenda. The train wreck that keeps wrecking...

 

Looks like they are wanting to define what “good behavior” since the current court is so corrupt they have blown through prior normal ethics standards.

Good behavior is in the constitution

It’s odd that the court gave itself the power of judicial review and are now ruling what congress does as well as what the president does but the magas are saying they are little mini dictators.

I remember when y’all hated them because they were moderates but now that you have fixed it with hyperpartisians you want them to have complete rule.

It’s all so fascinating

 

Two things.

1) The democrats know that this would be almost impossible to pull off. They just want to rile up their base.
2) The Democrats have no problem with the Supreme Court being political. What they don't like is finally being on the losing side after 60 years of using the court to circumvent the legislature to get what they want.

 

My money is on RWers backing the SC having ethics rules once the make up of the court changes.

 

Both quite true.

 

And my money is on the left losing the taste for it if that happens. Not to mention they won't want to pack the court anymore

 

So should Obama be charged with murder for the targeted assassination of an American citizen without due process?

 

But that's the problem of an age cap. It just incentivizes Presidents to choose younger people for the Supreme Court. I'd rather have someone who is 50, with more experience, KNOWING that in 18 years they will be retired then to have someone who is 35-40 who is chosen mostly because they know they will be on the court for another 30 years (or more)

 

I think you also forgot the increasing the number of justices part of his plan. I'm sure that was just an honest mistake.

nevertheless. Term limits on justices are retarded. As long as they're justices they can't run another business. However, if they retire they can. Which means a justice serving towards the end of his term would be incentivized to make rulings which will benefit himself and his business opportunities when he leaves office.

And a code of conduct enforceable by whom?

ETA: I see this proposal doesn't have the increased justices. I stand corrected.

 

1. Not a big argument either way for or against from me
2. Sure? But having rich friends you vacation with shouldn't be against rules
3. That would be the executive branch, which should be the weakest, overruling a SCOTUS decision that followed the proper chain.

In the end, the problem I HAVE with the proposal, is no president should be able to handcuff or change SCOTUS decisions that have been ruled.

 

Then it looks like you should support ethics rules now
Especially looking at the age of two of the more extreme magats on the bench

 

This has been discussed dozens of times here as well as constitutional scholars — it was authorized by a bill passed through congress and signed by the White House.

But do tell, do you think this nation will be better served by police having immunity? If you think you have a case against Obama, put it to trial — I will accept the results. Y’all will not though

 

No.

Under the Congressionally approved "Authorization to Use Military Force" (AUMF) the courts have held that the the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi was legal as the 5th Amendment did not apply (Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta)

https://casetext.com/case/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-2

When appealed to the Supreme Court the Court refused to hear the case letting the lower ruling stand.

 

2. So bribery should be legal as long as the people involved are "friends"?
3. It would NOT be the "executive branch overruling a SCOTUS decision" This would be an Amendment to the US Constitution which would have to be approved by 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and THEN ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 as of right now)

 

So as long as Congress authorizes a bill and approves it, the president can assassinate whomever he wants? Well that's nice to know for when Trump gets himself a super majority.

Or maybe you should just admit, you do believe there are those who are above the constitutional law.

 

The SCOTUS refused to hear it because there was no constitutional remedy because the POTUS is immune to criminal prosecution. Even when he denies an american his right to life without due process.

So, the president IS above the law.

 

It was a specific set of circumstances.

Want to complain? Then complain to Congress who gave the President the authority in rush of bills aimed at "protecting us" after 9/11.

The President is NOT above the law. In this case he was following the law.

 

This last, 'great' Biden initiative will be dead and cold on arrival. But after it's gone down in flames, it'll give the 'Crats something else to bitch and complain about as they toil endlessly to subvert and distort the Constitution.

This is the nature of Democrats. When Frankie Roosevelt was having a lot of trouble standing-up his new "Welfare State" concept in the 1930's, he turned intuitively to the tactic of packing the Supreme Court. Biden's handlers aren't trying that at this time -- they just want to 'nibble around the edges' of mangling the court into something that will be more 'Liberal-Democrat-friendly'....

 

No, vacations should. The answer was pretty clear.

Good luck!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but an Americans right to life and liberty as well as due process as provided for in the constitution supersedes any law that Congress might pass. Does it not?

 

And Trump isn't riling up his base? You make me laugh. Trump is breaking all the laws of decency in his language, attitutude and manner. His lies and demeanor will come back on him to his own detriment. His personal abuse to Harris is indefensible. Political criticism is acceptable in a society. Personal abuse, physical abuse is not.

Supporters of a dictator should take note. Stalins supporters slowly 'disappeared'.
Putins supporters are unexplicable dying or disappearing into long term prison sentences.
After the Reichstag fire Hitler threw his opponents - The Communist party - into Jail. He had Hindenberg make 2 new decrees “For the Defense of Nation and State” and “To Combat Treason against the German Nation and Treasonable Activities”—this how Hitler used the fire to further his own goals. Those two decrees suspendedevery part of the constitution that protected personal freedoms. The Nazis claimed that the decrees were necessary to protect the nation from the “Communist menace.”

Under Nazi control, the Reichstag passed a new law on March 21, 1933, that made it a crime to speak out against the new government or criticize its leaders. Known as the Malicious Practices Act, the law made even the smallest expression of dissent a crime. Those who were accused of “gossiping” or “making fun” of government officials could be arrested and sent to prison or a concentration camp. March 24, 1933, the Reichstag passed what became known as the Enabling Act by a vote of 141 to 94. It “enabled” the chancellor of Germany to punish anyone he considered an “enemy of the state.” The act allowed “laws passed by the government” to override the constitution. Only the 94 Social Democrats voted against the law. Most of the other deputies who opposed it were in hiding, in prison, or in exile.

This is only part of what dictators can do. Even their fervent supporters were often removed for failing to come up to the dictators requirements.

As an Englishman I would be appalled to see a Narcistic Trump in power as the USA is important to the rest of the world, just as the rest of the world is important to the USA. We are no longer isolated by time of distance.

 

Then complain to the Courts who said the 5th Amendment did not apply.

You want to blame Obama for doing something that both Congress and the Courts said was authorized.